Dawson, Peter James v World Travel Headquarters Pty Ltd

[1980] FCA 183

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - consumer protection - change of tour

itinerary after publication of brochure - meaning of

"accept" - objective determination of terms of contract -

agency - whether deposit "payment o r other consideration" -

whether services "materially different".

Trade Practices Act 1974 ss.58(b), 84(2).

PETER JAMES DAWSON v WORLD TRAVEL HEADQUARTERS PTY. LTD.

NOS. W.A.	G21-G26 Of 1980.
FISHER J.
ADELAIDE

28 November 1980.

l

I

I :

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) Xn. W.A.G. 21, 2 2 , 23, 24, 25

) d 1 l d Lb G f 1930

GENERAL	D I V I S I O N	)
B L: 'l' PI h' E N:
PETER JAMES DAWSOK

PKOSFCYltOl.

- a n c l -

WORLD 'I'RA'JEL HEADQUhR'I'CRS

PROl'R1L:TARY LIMITED

28 November 1980

REASONS K)R JUDGMENT

FISHER J.: Thls ma t t e r conce rns SIX a l l ~ y e r l con t r aven t lons by t h e

de fendan t o f t he p rov i s lons of s.58(b) of t h e T r a d e P r a c t l c e s A c t

1974 ( " the A c t " ) . A s the a l leged cont->- , lvc:I l t~ons arose out of t h e

same t r a n s a c t l o n , d l f f e r l r r y o n l y as t o Lhc. re levant datc:s , l t was

convenlent fo r them t o be h a r d t o g e t h r l . S - c t l o n 58(b) 1s I n t h e

fo l lowlng terms:

"A c o r p o r a t l o n s h a l l n o t , I n t r a d c x or commelce, accept

payment o r o t h e r c o n s l d e r a t l o n f o r goods OL servlces

where a t t h e tlme	of	t he accep tance	It	l n t c n d s
( a ) ...

(b ) t o s u p p l y goods o r s e r v l c e s m a t e r - l a l l y different from

the goods or s e r v l c e s I n r e s p e c t of whlch the payment

o r o t h e r c o n s l d e r a t l o n 1 s acccpLid. "

The f a c t s whlch I f l n d l n d l c a t e t h a t t h c alleqed con t raven t lons

arose In t he fo l lowlnq c l r cums tances . The drfendant, whlch was

a d m l t t e d t o be a corpola t lon engaglny 111 h a & 0 1 - c o m e r c e a t a l l

re levant tlmes, o p e r a t e s a s u b s t a n t l a l b u s l n e . s s I n t h e t r a v e l

I n d u s t r y . E s s e n t l a l l y It a r ranges to1:r-F w h c h It sel ls t o t h e

2.

public. The organlsatlon of all of thosc aspects of travel and

accomodatlon whlch go to make up the tours toqether wlth the prepar-

ation of brochures and other advartlslng matrrlal comprlscthe"wholesal@

side of a travel agency buslness, whll.ct thc actual selllng to the

lndlvldual members of the public of tho tour 1s known as the "retall"

buslness. The defendant operates ln both spheres, although It was,

for present purposes, essentlally the wholesaler of the tour ln

questlon.

In 1978 and 1979 the defendant employed Mlchael Henly Schultz

("Mr. Schultz") In Sydney In the posltlon known as "Product Manager,

Asia". As such hls prlmary ~esponslb~l~ty was t9 arrange ltlnerarles,

accomodatlon and travel In Asia for w h a t were known d S "Sw1ngaway

Asia" tours. In 1979 these tours had been operatlny for some slx

years. He was asslsted by qulte a substantlal staff In Sydney, and

by a staff member In both Melbourne a n d PeL1.h where the dcfendant

also carrled on buslness. I n August ard Scptcmber 197g Mr. Schultz

travelled throughout South East Asla arranging Swlngaway tcurs

to that contlnent durlng the perlod Aprll 1979 to March 1980.

Essentially he was engaged In negotlatlng accomodatlon, slghtseelng

t o u r s , land travel and receptlon at and 'cl-avc.1 from airports. Upon

hls return to Sydney In September he put together the tours whlch the

defendant would be offerlng to the publlc In the followlng year.

It was contemplated that such offerlng would be by way of a Swlngaway

brochure whlch would be dlstrlbuted throuyh travel agents, lncludlng

the defendant, engaged In the retall side of the travel Industry.

Whllst Mr. Schultz was overseas h1s staff had prellmlnary

dlscusslons wlth alrllnes concernlnq Kllghts tu and from Asla durlng

3 .

1979. On h l s r e t u r n he had d l scuss lons w1t.h t.he of f l ce r dppOln ted

by Qantas t o h a n d l e t h e t r a v e l Y e q u l r e m c ~ r ~ t ~ (;L the defendant . A

p a r t l c u l a r aspect under d l scuss lon was L h , l t C J ~ a d v a n c e a l r l l n e

s c h e d u l e s f o r t h e p e r l o d commencing 1 ALJ' I 1 1979. A document

comprising t h a t s c h e d u l e w d s delivered L,-. M L . S c h u l t z , a n d a t t h e

same tlme h l s a t t e n t l o n was drawn t u t h , . l 'd(. t t h a t It d l s d l o s c d t h a t

on t h e Perth-Singapore S C C L ~ L , t h e fllql11- , - J u ~ (uf P p l t h W ~ S scheduled

t o leave on a Tuesday. M r . Schu l t z was < ~ w d r ~ ' ( . j f thc f a c t , whlch

was a d v e r t e d t o by the Qantas represent.al 1v(-., Lhdt a t t h a t t u n e f l l g h t s

ou t of P e r t h t o Singapore dt?ppc,rted on Wwlnc,s(Jdys. Ml. Schul t z w a s

advlsed tha t what he was glven was a plc1 I mlnary schedule whch was

s u b ~ e c t t o c h a n g e , b u t was the best InfoLrnatlon whlch Qantas had

a v a l l a b l e fo r M r . Schu l t z t o work on 111 planning h l s t o u l s I n Asla.

Upon recelpt of t h l s s c h e d u l e M L . 5.hulLz set about p rcpar lng

the brochure whlch advert lsed Swlngaway t o u r s f o r 1975-80. He

s t a t e d t h a t h e relled e n t l r e l y upon the Qantds lnformatlun I n

p r e p a r l n g r e l e v a n t p o r t l o n s of t h e b r o c h u r e , dnd t h a t thi: rlecessary work

mvdved I n prepara txn , p r lnClng and d l s t r lbu t1c .n took approximately

three months. By ear ly January 1975 thr: brochure had been pr lnted

and t h e r e a f t e r was d l s t r l b u t e d , showlng l t d ~ Qantas €lights d

depar t lng f rom Per th on a Tuesday. D U L I I I ~ ,J&uary 1575 M t . Sclrultz

h a d d l s c u s s l o n s w l t h t h e o f f l c e r o f Q a n t a s c o n c c r n l n g f l l g h t s Gut of

Per th , because.al though he had relied upon t h a t officer's s c h d u l e

In p repar lng h i s b rochure . , ln format lor l r : m u r q from the Qantas computer

c o n t l n u e d t o l n d l c a t e t h a t t h e WedneSddy f l i g h t s were unrhanged. In

t h e l as t days of Janualy or ear ly Februdiy l ' j79 M r . Schul tz became dware

that Qantas dld not propose to change I L s d e p a r t u r e d a t e s a n d t h a t

I t s f l l g h t s o u t of Pe r th would remaln o n a W(-dnesday. 'Thl:: s t a t c of

4.

affairs w a s confirmed w l t h t h e Q a n t a s o f f l c e r who had supp l l ed t he

o r ig ina l s chedu le and w l th whom M r . Schu l t z had kept l n t o u c h d u r l n g

the intervenlng months.

I n so f a r as t h e Swlngaway b r o c h u r c s r c p r e s e n t e d t h a t t o u r s from

P e r t h t o Slngapore departed on a Tuesday, they w e r e I n c o r r e c t i n

t h a t t h e d e p a r t u r e d a t e w a s now delaywl hy one day. A p a r t l c u l a r

tour whlch p r o c e e d l n g s , w a s l d e n t l f l e d l n w a s affected, and whlch 1s t h e t o u r r c l e v a n t t o t h e s e

the brochur-e a s “Swingaway Asla Group

Hollday G.P.E.” and i t s f o l l o w i n g s p e c l a l f e a t u r e s were h l g h l l g h t e d .

I ts heading w a s “16 days: To Slngapore, Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Hong

Kong“ and I ts hlghl lghts Included: “Three country tour . Duty T’ree

shopping. Four nlghts a t Beach Reso’r t . Overland tour Slngapore-

Kuala Lumpur-Penang“. The tour prlce w d s s t a t e d t o I n c l u d e “ S l n g a p o r c

3 nlghts“ the t o u r i s t s were and t o l eave Pe r th on Day 1 (Tuesday) f o r Singapore where

t o be m e t and taken to a h o t e l . Day 2 (Wednesday)

Included a mornlng tour and the ba lance of t ha t day t oge the r w l t h Day

3 (Thursday) was scheduled to be spent In Slngapore. On t h e rnornlng

of day 4 ( F r l d a y ) t h e g r o u p was t o leave S lngapore over land for

Kuala Lumpur. A t t h e e n d of t h e t o u r t h e b r o c h u r e p r o v l d e d t r a v e l

from Hong Kong t o P e r t h v l a S l n y a p o r e , a r l r l v l n g l n P e r t h on day 16

(Wednesday) I n the ea r ly hour s o f t he morn lng . Depa r tu re da t e s fo r

t h e t o u r , t o t h e e x t e n t r e l e v a n t t o thesc, procecdlngs, w c r e advertised

as June 12, July 10 and August 2 8 , bc lng 111 each l n s t ance a Tueszay.

When P e r t h f o r S l n g a p o r e he became aware t h a t Q a n t a s would con t lnue t o l eave f rom

on a Wednesday and t h a t th l s requl red an

a l t e r a t i o n t o t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r t h e t o u r s g e n e r a l l y , a n d t o u r

G.P.E. I n p a r t l c u l a r , M r . S c h u l t z s a l d t h a t h c t o o k s t e p s t o r e d e s l g n

t h e t o u r t o p r o v l d e , a s c l o s e l y a s p o s s l b l c , t h e same l t l n e r a r y a s

5.

was adve r t l s ed In t he b rochure . I n so (io1r1c3 h e was r e s k l c t e d , h e

t o l d us, by c e r t a l n r e q u l r e m e n t s ('7.A.T.A. ~ q u l a t l o n s ' ) w h l c h , I n t e r

a l i a , d l d n o t permlt h l m t o p r o v l d e a s L o p - ( ? v r . L I n Slnqsp(r1 r ) on t h e

r e t u r n t r l p t o Perth whlch exceeded 2 4 houls .

M r . S c h u l t z ' s o p l n l o n was t h a t I n the, clrcumstanccs the best

course w a s t o d e l a y t h e l c t u r n t o P e r t h and t.o provide an exi-ra nlght

i n S l n g a p o r e a t the end of t h e t o u r . Il~w(~vc~1- because of t h e '7.A.T.A.

r egu1a t lons"h l s pas senge r s would be r e q u l l c d t o d e p a r t Singapore f o r

P e r t h on t h e f l l g h t whlch l c f t e a r l y t h r , following nmrnlng and could

not spend tha t day In Slngapore. H c st,-ltwl that. In hls vl(-1w and based

on h l s e x p e r l e n c e t h c c h a n g e s t h a t d f f i c t w l I h : ? t o u r w c r c ! It?lnlmal

and d ld no t warran t any fur ther chanqc 111 t h e Itinerary. H e

acknowledged t h a t h e c o u l d h a v e c h a n q c j t h e wholc l t l n e r a r y b y s c t t l n g

lt b a c k o n e d a y o v e r a l l b u t s a l d t h a t SUC-h a change "would become

haza rdous due t o unava l l ab l l l t y of accontod~itlon In some key a r e a s

t h r o u g h o u t t h e i t l n e r a r y " . I n t h e ultimate, the changes whlch he

made t o t o u r G.P .E. , whlch thereaf ter- re=maln(?u u n a l t e r e d , w e r e t h a t

it would d e p a r t on a Wednesday and not a Tuesday, thercby loslng a

day I n S l n g a p o r e . a n d t h a t t h e r e a f t e r u n t l l the l a s t day of t h e

t o u r t h e i t l n e r a r y would be as adve r t l s ed . A t t h e e n d of t h e t o u r ,

i n s t e a d o f l e a v l n g S l n y a p o r e o n T u e s d a y c v c n l n q s h o r t l y a f t c r a r l l v a l

from Hong Kong and f l y l n g on t o Per th , i hat n l g h t would bv s p e n t I n

S lngapore and the depar ture de layed urlt.11 ' j . f I 0 d.m. (local t l r n e ) on

t h e Wednesday mornlng. Instead of arr lvlr lg 1 1 1 P e r t h 111 the e a r l y

hours of Wednesday mornlny , the new arrival tune= was s r h e d u l e d f o r

ear ly af ternoon of that day. The conscqucncc of t h e s e aJ Ireratlons

was t h a t t h e t o u r l s t s would lose a day 111 Sllqapore, whlch day was

scheduled as day 3 ( a Thursday) In the brachu:e, but gain n l g h t

6 .

s t a y i n a h o t e l I n S l n q a p > r e a t t h e (,rill 01. the t o u r . 'Thus t h e n e t

l o s s t o t h e t o u r l s t s was the dayl lyht hours o f one day I n Slngapore

l n t h a t t h e y were absent from Australia fa1 approxlmatc ly ha l f a day

less than t he b rochure o f f e red .

M r . f u l l d a y s I n S l n g a p o r e a t t h e Schul tz acknowledged that the. p r o v ~ SIOII oi two consecu t lve

commencement of t h e t o u r was a f e a t u r e

of some I n buy lng s lgn l f l cance and an a t t r a c t l v c o f f e r t o a p e r s o n I n t e r e s t e d

t he t o u r . Whcn asked If 1 1 o c c u ~ ? c d t o hlm t o send out a

memorandum f o r t h e u s e o f p a s s e n g e r s wh,> mlyht book on t h e basls of

t h e Swmgaway brochure he gave the following s l g n l f l c a n t answcr

whlch I set out verbat lm:

" Y e s , w e had a f a l l s a f e s y s t e m b u l l t i n t o t h e o p e r a t i o n s ,

where I f a t o u r was changed, nobody could make a r e s e r v a t l o n

wl thout be lng Informed tha t they WPL'C, l n f a c t , pu1chci.l n g

something d l f f e r e n t f r o m what t hey r ead l n ou r b rochures . "

The f a l l safe system was lmplementcd In thls p r e s e n t m a t t e r I n

respect of tour G.P.E. by the s end lny ( o f - tel exes t o t h e member of

Mr. S c h u l t z ' s s t a f f I n P e r t h , Mrs. Sue Lynch, w h o w a s a u t h o r l s e d t o

pass on the changes . The f l r s t telex, rece lved on 5 February 1979

was exp la ined a s convey lng In l a y m a n ' s lanquaqe t o Mrs. Lynch . i s

follows:

"Swingaway Asla 79/80. Please nvtc amendments Hong Kong-Slngapore- t o serles

G.P.E., Departures w l l l be o n e d a y l a t e 1 c u t t l n g o u t a day

i n Slngapore. However I n l l e u o f f l y l n g

Pe r th , pas senge r s w i l l f l y Slnqapoze A l r l l n e s Hong Kong-

Slngapore l eav ing 10.45 a r r l v l n g 3 5 . 2 0 then overn lght a t

Marco	Po lo be fo re f l l gh t Qan tas S lnqapore -Pe r th l eav lng
09.00	arr lvlng 14.20. Thls ddy f Llght. w l l l b r l n g passengers

back t o P e r t h o n same day as p~t :vlous schedule ."

A f u r t h e r telex rece lvcd by M r s . Lynch from Sydney on 19 Fcbruary

1979 amended t h e f l r s t t e l e x a s f o l l o w s :

"Swingaway Asia 79/80. R e t o m G.P.E. serles. On telex

5 F e b r u a r y s t a t e d t h a t p a s s e n g e r s would f ly S lngapore

A i r l l n e s Hong Kong-Singapore leavlnq 10.45 a r r l v l n g 15 .20

t h e n o v e r n l g h t S l n g a p o r e b e f o r e c o n n e c t l n g t o P e r t h a t

09.00. Due to Schedule change Slr igapore Alr l lnes , Hong Kong-

Singapore w l l l now be l e a v l n g 15 .35 a r r lv lnq 1d .30 ."

7 .

I t 1 s t o be n o t e d t h a t t h e f irst t e l e x s p e c l f l c a l l y s t a t e d

t h a t the p a r t l c u l a r t o u r would be a l t p r e d t o t h e e x t e n t o f " c u t t l n g

out a day In Slngapore". I t w a s t h l s l n fo rma t lon wh lch Mrs. Lynch

was a u t h o r l s e d t o p a s s on and M r . S c h u l t z f x p e c t e d t h a t It would be

p a s s e d o n I n l m p l e m e n t a t l o n o f t h e f a l l s a f e s y s t m t o e n s u r e I n h l s

words that "nobody could make a reserva t lon wl thout be lnq Informed

t h a t t h e y w e r e , In fac t , purchas lng someth lny d l f fe ren t f rom what

they read In our b rochures" . However, there was no ev ldence a s t o

whether Mrs. Lynch passed t h l s l n f o r m a t l o n o n g e n e r a l l y to t h o s e

b u s l n e s s e s t o whom the de fendan t ' s b rochures had been d l s t r lbu ted .

The ed t o an enqulry o n l y e v l d e n c e a s t o any passlng on of t h e a l t e r a t l o n s r e l a t -

made by a Mrs. Don of Jetset Tours on 8 May 1979 ( t o

whlch I w l l l r e f e r a g a l n la ter) I n r e f e r e n c e t o a G.P.E. Tour leavlng

Per th on 1 2 June 1979. Mrs. Lynch ' s ev ldence which conf l lc t s wl th

t h a t of M r s . Don was t h a t s h e r e p l l e d t o t h e e n q u l r y as fol lows:

" I ' m so r ry : Its not 1 2 June any more. I t 1 s 13 June. It

1 s d e p a r t l n g a d a y l a t e r a n d It 1 s as per brochure and

instead of comlng back on Tuesday Hong Kong-Slngapore-Perth

on c o n n e c t l n g S l n g a p o r e A l r l l n e s f l l g h t s , t h e y would be

f l y l n g Hong Kong-Slngapore on t h e T u e s d a y , o v e r n l g h t a t t h e

Marco Polo Hotel In Slngapore, and then f lylng Slngapore-

P e r t h on Wednesday wl th Qan tas . "

The fact t h a t o n e d a y would be "cu t ou t " In S lngapore w a s n o t

I n so many t h e S l n g a p o r e - P e r t h f l l g h t words passed on by M r s . Lynch, nor w a s t h e tlme a t whlch

would l e a v e S l n g a p o r e f o r P e r t h o n t h e

Wednesday. There was no ev ldence tha t dny f u r t h e r l n f o m a t l o n a s t o

t h e a l t e r a t i o n t o t h e G.P.E. t o u r s was p a s s e d t o M r s . Don and t h e

la t ter ' s evldence was t h a t o n 9 and 10 May 1979 t h e o n l y l n f o r m a t l o n

she had rang her more than w a s t h a t t h e t o u r w a s l e a v l n g a day la ter , When M r s . Court

a week l a t e r e n q u l r l n g I f t h e t o u r h a d b e e n

shor tened M r s . Don could not answer her wlthout agaln te lephonlng

Mrs. Lynch f o r f u r t h e r l n f o r m a t l o n .

The s p e c l f l c t r a n s a c t l o n s whlch qlvc rlse t o t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s

concern bookings wlth the G.P.E. tou1 (l<,:;cr~b,td I n the Swlnqawq

Asla brochure, whlch booklnys w ~ = z e mar](. l r l P + , I t h by a M L S . arid MISS

Court who both gave evldencr?. The evlJ~nci yLvcn by Mlss Cour t w a s

no t who l ly s a t l s f ac to ry on 311 a s p e c t s . 'I'hlr. w d s due & least I n

par t t o t h e f a c t t h a t s h e suffers from (3st hm,l ,111tl was un&lc tc7 perform

w e l l under the stress of qlvlng ev1derr-c. In so f a r as her evldence

c o n f l l c t s w l t h t h e e v l d e n c e o f o t h e r s I d r ) not ?rely upon It as

s u f f l c l e n t l y r e l l a b l 3 t o c s t a b l l s h a S ( \ L I U U S c 1 lrnlnal o f fcnce .

However I n t h e u l t l m a t e lt 1s my oplnl'2n 1-hat t h a t p a r t of ht,r

evldence whlch 1 s u n s a t l s f a c t o r y relat?s In t.hc maln t o pc.rLphera1

matters, and t h e r e 1 s no c r u c l a l c o n f l l c t be?twccn h e r e v l d e n c c , t h e

evidence of her mother and t h a t o f M r s . Don, t h r : person at Jetset

Tours with whom they made the l r book lnqs .

My f l n d l n g s o n t h l s a s p e c t o f t h e c a 5 e t o t h e e x t e n t I see them

as re levant and necessary may be now silt Qu t . MISS Court durlny

April 1979 collected from t r a v e l a g e n t s a ~ ~ u m b ~ r o f b r o c h u r c s ,

lnc ludlng the b rochure In ques t lo t1 f rom Jctset Tours.

On t h e l as t page of the brochure appt larcd the fo l lowlnq wo~ds :

"Please make your r e se rva t lons w l th thr: TLavel Agent

whose name appears below."

I n a block provlded below. the nanc " J c s t s e t Tours" toge the r w l th

an address had been stamped, doubtless by Jetset TOUL-S. Somewhat

earller i n t h e b r o c h u r e a t ea r ou t "Resc lva t lon Reques t " was Included

bu t t h e r e was no e v l d e n c e t h a t M r s . o r MI bs Court slgned suc i? a

document. She and her mother selected thc. Swlnyaway Tour G.P.E.

9.

because they had some assoclatlon wlth people ln Slngapore and

Kuala Lumpur. Mrs. Court In partlcular was attracted to the two days advertlsed as provlded In Slngapore, because she had contacts who

could asslst her In her shopplng. She r1fcslre.a to buy In Slnqapore

a blrthday present for another daughter.

Early In May 1979 Mlss Court appr<mchd Jetset Tours to make a

booklng for herself and her mother, am1 she talked to Mrs. Dsn.

The partlcular G.P.E. tour In whlch she was lnterested was the one

departlng. according to the brochure, on June 12. Whlle Mlss Court

walted Mrs. Don rang Mrs. Lynch at World Travel Headquarters t3 enqulre

about avallability of places on that tour. Mrs. Lynch salrl that she

gave Mrs. Don lnformatlon concernlng’the tow 111 the words whlch

I have already set out. She also told Mrs. Don that she was not able

i~ conflrm any reservatlons on that partlcular tour, but she had to

request reservatlons from Sydney. She then offered Mrs. Don

reservations on the subsequent tour, departlng 11 July blAk advertlsed

ln the brochure as departlng 10 July, whlch she would be able to

conflrm. At thls stage, however, MISS Court stlll wlshed to go on

the 13 June tour, so the reservation was left as a request.

Mrs. Don gave the followlng evldence of what she was told by

Mrs. Lynch In that phone conversation, and what she told MISS Court:

“On ringlng Sue (Lynch) she then.. . told me that thc tour

was not leavlng on the day specl€lrd 111 the brochure but

on the followlng day. The tour, as I presumed, was stlll

a 15 night tour, and I could not bc 100 p e ~ cent sure that

I told Miss Court specifically at that partlcular tlme that

it was a 15 nlght tour but I would deflnltely not have let

her go out of the offlce thinklng that she was golny on a

day when the tour was not operatlnq. espcclally when	I had
to take It down on my flle.

10.

It subsequent ly tu rned ou t tha t the 1 3 J u n e t o u r was f u l l y

booked. When s h e f o u n d t h l s , M r s . Don con tac t ed MISS Cour t , who

now preferred t h e t o u r d e p a r t l n g on 11 J u l y and who Chen r eques t ed

t h a t 2 r e s e r v a t l o n s be made o n t h e l a t t e r t o u r . Mrs. Don then asked

f o r a depos l t and was p romlsed tha t onc wuld be p a l d l m e d l a t e l y .

She then rang M r s . Lynch and conflrmcd 2 r e s e r v a t l o n s o n t h e t o u r

depa r t lng on 11 July 1979. There was no evidence t h a t M r s . Lynch

g a v e t o M r s . Don any informatlon speclf lcal ly r e l a t l n g t o t h l s t o u r

such as t h e i n f o r m a t l o n she s a y s s h e g a v e I n r e s p e c t o f t h e t o u r

d e p a r t l n g on 1 3 June. Ml-S . Don s a l d t h a t all she was t o l d I n respect

of t h l s t o u r and t h e earller t o u r and a l l s h e r e l a y e d t o Miss Ccurt

was t h a t t h e t o u r depar ted a day later. To t h e E x t e n t t h a t t h e r e 1s

a c o n f l l c t between the ev ldence o f Mrs. Lynch and Mrs. Ijon, I accep t

t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e l a t t e r . N o a d d l t l o n a l l n f o r m a t l o n I n respcct

of t h e a l t e r a t l o n s t o t h e t o u r d e p a r t l n g o n 11 Ju ly 1979 was glven

by Mrs. Lynch t o Mrs. Don or Mrs Don t o t h e C o u r t s p r l o r t o 18 May1979

On 9 May 1979 Mlss Cour t pa ld $100 1.0 Jetset T o u r s b a n g p a r t

deposl t on Tour G.P.E. f o r h e r s e l f a n d her mother. On t h e f o l l o w l n g

day $60 evldence w a s t h a t belng t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e d e p o s l t was pa ld . Mlss C c u r t ' s

a t t h e t l m e s h e p a l d t h P d e p o s l t s s h e was s t l l l

unde r t he lmpress lon t ha t t he t ou r w a s leavlnq on Tuesday 10 ~ u i y .

However I accept Mrs. D o n ' s e v i d e n c e t h a t a t t h e t l m e Mlss Cour t pa ld

t h e f irst changed da te o f depar ture , namely ins t a lmen t o f t he depos l t she had i n fonned MISS Court of tk

froIll Tuesday 10 July to Wednesday

11 Ju ly c o n c e r n l n g a l t e r a t l o n s 1979. I a l s o f l n d t h a t a t t h l s t l m e no fu r the1 l n fo rma t lon

t o the b rochure was g l v e n t o Mlss Court, and

t h a t t h e o n l y i n f o r m a t l o n M r s . Don had from M r s . Lynch was t h a t g l v e n

t o her I n respect o f t h e t o u r d e p a r t l r q I n J u n e . C e r t a l n l y no f u r t h e r

ln format lon w a s g lven In a l e t t e r bca r lng date 10 May l9?9 whlch

M r s . Don d l c t a t e d f o r Mlss Cour t o the r t han t ha t the tol l r departed

11.

on 11 July 1979. Both ML’S and Miss Coult. denled havlnq rece ived thls

le t te r , a n d c e r t a i n l y t h e r e 1 s no s a t l h f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e of It having

been posted. A p o s s l b l e e x p l a n a t l o n f u ~ t h e f a c t t h a t 11. may not have

been s en t , i s t h a t lt requested payment ‘ I f the ba lancc of ihe d e p o s l t ,

which ba lance was In fac t pa ld by Mlss COUI-L 011 t h e d a t e o f Che

l e t te r . Mrs. Don a g r e e d t h a t t h l s d.+tf* was t-he d a t e o€ t.yplrly and

fhat i f t h e l e t te r was s e n t It would h a v e been posted subsequent t o

t h a t d a t e . However a s I f l n d t h a t MISS Court was t o l d of the changed

d a t e o f d e p a r t u r e a t the tlme she pald C h r , f l r s t l n s t a l m e n t s o f t h e

d e p o s l t , I can not see the l e t t e r a s h a v l n c ~ s l g n l f l c a n c e on any

r e l e v a n t aspect o f t h e matter.

These deposl t sums t o t a l l l n g $160 were passed by Jetset Tours

t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n P e r t h a n d a r e r e f c A L I - 4 t o ~n a recrllpt pl-tqmred

by M r s . Lynch on 16 May 1 9 T . Mrs. Lynch acknowldged t l m t tile

d e p o s i t s were probably rece lved by t h e defendant from Jetset Tours

on the p recedlng day . On 1 8 May Mlss C J m t pa ld the sum of $1,000

t o Jetset Tours be lnq po r t lon of the ba1,xice due In respect. o f t h e

booklngs of t h e t o u r . T h l s sum w a s n o t passed on by Jetset T o u r s t o

t he de fendan t u n t i l about 11 June 1979, by whlch tlme M r s . Court had

(on 31 commission re ta ined May) p a l d t h e b a l a n c e on the f a r e s , and both sums, I.ess

by Jetset Tours , were passed on toge ther .

A t a b o u t t h e t l m e Mlss Court pald C h e mstalmerlt on 18 May 1979,

her mother ob ta ined some f u r t h e r I n f o r m a t i o n a s t o t h e a l t c r a t l o n s .

On t h i s d a t e Miss Cour t was under the lmpress lon tha t a l though the

t o u r was leavlng one day l a te r , two days a t t h e o u t s e t would still

be provided In Slngapore. H e r e a r l l e r pencll amendment t o t h l s effect

t o t h e l n f o r m a t l o n On t h e re levant paqe o f her copy of the brochure

t e n d s t o confirm t h i s as she r ece lved no adv lcc of any alteration

between 10 May and 18 May 1979. The f u r t h e r l n f o r m a t l o n as t o the

changes whlch was ob ta lned by M r s . C o m t : w a s Lhe r e s u l t of a telephcre

12.

ca l l she made t o M r s . Don. Mrs. C o u r t s a l d l n l t l a l l y i n h e r c v l d e n c e

t h a t t h l s c o n v e r s a t l o n was I n t h e week commenclng 18 May 1973, and

l a t e r t h a t it occurred on about 2 1 May 1379. Mrs. Don r e c o l l e c t s

t h e c o n v e r s a t l o n b u t c a n f l x t h e d a t < < no morc e x a c t l y t h a n a s h e l n g

subsequent t o 8 May and no l a t e r t h a n 3 1 May 1979. Mrs. Court

s t a t e d t h e c o n v e r s a t l o n a s f o l l o w s :

"I asked Mrs. Don, ' could you p l e a s e t e l l m e , because

t h e t o u r 1 s belng changed from 10 t o 11 J u l y , would

w e stlll be g e t t l n g t h e f u l l e x t e n t of t h e 16 day

t o u r ' . She s a l d , 'Yes, you w l l l be maklng up the

day on t h e way back from Hong Xong. When you a r r l v e

back from Hong Kong you w l l l haw, t ha t day In Singapore

t h a t you d l d n o t get o n t h e way u p ' . "

Mrs. Don's r e c o l l e c t l o n of t h e c o n v e r s a t l o n was g l v e n a s

f O l l O W S :

"Later on , e l t h e r Miss Cour t o r M r s . Court rang m e t o a s k

m e whether the tour had In any way been shortened and I

s a i d I would go back t o World Trave l wh l l e she hLng un, on

t h e o t h e r l l n e . I spoke with Sue Lynch and asked her whether

they were g e t t l n g any reduction I n t h e n l g h t s away and sue

s a i d ' N o ' . The n i g h t t h a t was t o be l n S i n g a p o r e I n the

f irst part o f t h e l r ~ o u r n e y h a d been t ransposed t o t h e e n d

of t h e i r ~ o u r m e y , so they were g e t t l n g t h e e x t r a n l g h t I n

S i n g a p o r e a f t e r Hong Kong: and t h l s 1 s what I p a s s e d o n t o

Mrs. o r Mlss Cour t on t he o the r cnd of t h e phone. 'I

The s l g n l f l c a n t f e a t u r e s of the l r c o n v e r s a t l o n a r e t h a t M r s .

Court enqulred whether she would s t l l l be y e t t l n g t h e f u l l l e n g t h

o f t he t ou r , wh lch 1 s conflrmed by Mrs. Don's verslon that she

had enqulred I f t he t ou r had been short.enPrl. t h a t M r s . Don had n o t

t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n h a n d t o a n s w e r t h e m q u l r y a n d h a d t o r e f e r t o

Mrs. Lynch and t h a t t h e two t r a v e l agcxnts spoke not of shortenmy

t h e t o u r b u t o f t h e number o f n l g h t s of t h e t o u r .

Mrs. Cour t fo r he r pa r t unde r s tood the l n f x m a t l o n s h e r e c e l v e d

from Mrs. Don as l n d l c a t l n g t h a t t h e day lost In S lngape re 111 t h e

e a r l y p a r t o f t h e t o u r would be made UIJ a t Lhc: e n d . T h l s s a t l s f l e d

13.

h e r f o r h e r p a r t l c u l a r I n t e r e s t was t h c rlulnbcl of days l n whlch she

could shop. i n v o l v e d I n t h e t o u r However, t o t h e t r a v e l a g m t , t h e number of n l g h t s

was m O r e s l g n l f l c a r l ? b ~ c a u s e i s M r s . Don s a l d

t h e h o t e l	expenses were	the maln	c o s t dncl	" t h a t 1 s what	I	was	I n t e r e s t -
ed In" .

Mrs. Court received on 28 June l(37.3 flotrl Jctset Tor11 S a copy of

t h e l t l n e r a r y o f t h e t o u r s h o w l n g t h r 11(-'w ;~ r r - ,~ r~gemen t s as made by

M r . S c h u l t z . S h e s a l d t h a t t h l s was the, first tune t h a t she agprec la t -

ed t h a t s h e would be l o s l n g t h e d a y l l g h t h o u r s of one ddy In Slngapore,

and tha t she compla ln rd t o Jetset T O U L L , - m c c i - n l n y t h l s I . ' J S S .

The upshot o f th l s ev ldence 1s th;jt I f l n t l t h a t t h e o n l y

a l t e r a t l o n t o t h e b r o c h u r e w h l c h was r lc t l f le t i by the defendant to

Jetset Tours and by Jctset T o u r s t o t h c C o u r t s p r l o l t o t h e payment

by M i s s C o u r t on 18 May 1079 was t h e a~ocn<ic.d d a t e of depa r tu re .

There was no ev ldence tha t M r s o r M l s s Court were aware o r should

have been aware p r lo r t o t h l s date of any r:onscquentlal changes.

Subsequent t o t h l s payment by he r dauqh te r . M r s . Court was a l e r t e d

t o f u r t h e r c o n s e q u e n t l a l c h a n g e s . P r l n r t o 31 May 1979 whcn M r s .

Court made a f i n a l payment she was made a w a l e t h a t t h e r e were

consequent la l changes t o the l t l n e r a r y d l s c l o s e d by the b rochure , bu t

she mi sunde r s tood t he t rue na tu re of t h c c:hanyes. My f ~ r ~ t h n g a n t h s

s c o r e 1s t h a t t h e two l n s t a l m e n t s of the depoal ts were rc .cclved by

Jetset Tours a t a tlme when the Courts understood the only amendxent

t o the i t i n e r a r y a s d l sc losed In t he b rochu lc . w a s the changed date of

depa r tu re . I would a l s o f m d t h a t t h e posl t lon was t h e samc when

M l s s Court made t h e pabment on 18 May l ' j 7 C r . A t t h e tune when Jetse!t

Tours r ece lved t he f l na l paymen t on 31 May 197<) t h e C o u r t s we're

aware or should have been aware t ha t t h t - l e w e r e consequcmtlal chanqes

14.

bu t t hey d ld no t app rec l a t c . t he ac tua l 1121-nrc of t h e clmnges. Mrs.

C o u r t d l d n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e t r u e posltloI1 u n t l l s h e t e l e p h o n e d

Jetset Tours a f t e r c o l l e c t l n g h e r t i c k c l : ; I I I JLIIIC 1979 and t h e

t e l e p h o n e c a l l c o n f l r m e d t h e a d v l c e 111 he1 l t l n e r a r y .

I t u r n t o the ques t lon whether on Lhcsc- f a c t s I am s a t l s f l e d . t o

t h e r e q u l s l t e d e g r e e o f c s r t a l n t y , t o f l n d t h a t - a con t r aven t lon

has occu r red l n any one OL more of th , . ( ' J 1-~:umst,inccs a l l c q c d by t h e

informatlons. Each of the charges was L I I the. Following genc ia l form

d l f f e r l n g o n l y a s t o t h e amount p a l d and t h e name o f t h c a l l c q e d

payer , namely that

'I.. .between the nlnth day of May lk*7 ' ) a ~ d t h e e1evt.rlt.h day

of Ju ly 1979 lnc lus lve a t P e r t h ln the S t a t e o f Wes te rn

A u s t r a l l a you be lng a corporation 1 1 1 t r a d ? o r colnnwrce dld

c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r o v l s l o n s o f sec t lon 79(l)(a) of t he T rade

Practlces A c t 1974 con t r avene s cc t lon 58 (b ) o f t he sald A c t

I n t h a t you did accept payment for- 5 e l v ~ c e s when a t t.he

time of such acceptance you d i d i r ~ t c n d t o s u p p l y servlces

m a t e r l a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e S P ~ V ~ C C S 111 respect of w h c h

t h e payment was a c c e p t e d l n t h a t you d ~ d accept f rom

Roslyn Denise Cour t t he sum of $50 as a d e p o s l t f o r a

'Swlngaway Asia Group Hollday t i . P . K . ' t udr , t h e Suld t31.11 havlllg

been represented by you a s b e l n q ,2f 1 6 clays d u r a t l o n when

It was of 1 5 days du ra t lon on ly . "

P a r t i c u l a r s o f t h e c h a r g e w e r e supp l l ed a s fo l lows :

"1. Between the abow~ment loned d a t e , you

( a ) dld accept f rom Roslyn D e r u h e C Q I I L ~ , by your

agent Jetset Tours (W.A)	PCy. L t d . t h e sumnf
$50.90

( b ) t h e s a i d sum of $50.00 was a d e p o s l t f o r a t o u r

a d v e r t l s e d a ~ l d r ep resen ted by you a s 'Swlngaway

Asia Group Hollday G.P.E. ' d c p a r t l n g P e r t h 1 0 t h

July 1979 and of 16 days dura t lon .

2 . The p r o s e c u t o r a l l e g e s :

t h e s a i d t o u r w a s of 1 5 days ' d u r a t l o n o n l y d e p a r t i n g

Pe r th on 11 J u l y 1979 and a t t h c t lmc of accepLancc~ of

t h e s a l d payment of $50.00, flom th(: sald. Roslyrl I)cwlse

Cour t , you d l d I n t e n d t o s u p p l y : , c~v l ccs m a t e r l a l l y

d l f f e r e n t f r o m t h e s e r v l c e s 111 respect. of whlch the

s a l d payment was accepted 111 t h d t t h c s a l d t o u r has of

1 5 days ' dura t lon on ly and ha:; t o d c p a i t P e r t h on 11

J u l y 1979. "

15.

Sec t lon 58 i s not an easy provls lcm to understand or app ly ,

p a r t l c u l a r l y l n the complex circumstances of t h l s m a t t c r . Sub-

section ( b ) u s e s t h e words "services rnatt:~ ally different from the. . .

s e r v l c e s I n respect of whlch t h e paymC:nt o r o t h e r c o n s l d e r a t l o n 1s

accepted". It 1 s especially d l f f l c u l t to dl:fLne and detc:,mlne

the la t ter defendant each contended for- s e r v l c e s I n thls case. CoJllsal T o 1 the p r o s m u t o r a n d t h e

a wlde ly conCras t lng cons t ruc t lon of

the words "serv lces 111 1-espect of which t h e f q m e n t OL- o thc r cons lde r -

a t i o n S accepted" and the proper const j -mlct lon 1s c r u c l a l t o t h e

c o r r e c t d e c i s l o n o n t h e c h a r g e s b e f o l e m(:.

C o u n s e l f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s u b m l t t d t h d t t h e l n t e n t ~ o n of thc:

p rov ide r of t h e s e r v l c e s was cruclal not a n l y I n d e f l n l n q t h

s e r v l c e s It p roposed t o supp ly , b u t 111 c?cte;lnlnlng t h e s e r v l c e s i n

respect of whlch t h e payment was accepCet1. H c contc--.nded t h a t I n t . h l s

matter t h e r e c o u l d be no con t r aven t lon because, s t a t ed s lmply , on

each of t h e d a t e s upon whlch It a l l eged ly acccp ted paymt:nts lt

ln tended t o supply by way o f s e rv l ces t ha t wh lch It d l d m f a c t

ul t lmately supply. There was no d l s p u t e that. such l n t e n t l o n w a s t o

s u p p l y t h e s e r v l c e s a s set o u t I n t h t b z c x h l l l c . a s a l t w - c d I n J a n u a r y

1979 and adv i sed t o Mrs. Lynch by t c l c x o n 5 February 19?9 . Dxause

these were t h e s e r v i c e s whlch the de fendan t at. a11 r e l evan t tlmes

in tended t o supp ly and d ld In f ac t supp ly l t was contended that tney

must be t h e s e r v l c e s I n respect of which thc. r)ayments were accepted.

C o u n s e l d r e w a t t e n t l o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t under the s c c t l o n the

l n t e n t l o n o f t h e p r o v l d e r of t h e s e r v l c c s w a s , h e s a l d . the-

s i g n l f l c a n t feature , a n d h e r e l l e d upon thc use of t h e word "accepted"

r a t h e r t h a n th roughou t on t he p rov ldc r o f s e rv l ces t h e w o r d s " p a l d " or " recc lved" . AS the emphasls was

arid 11:s s t a t e o f r n ~ n c i , t h e

16.

servlces In respect of whlch payment wds d-cepted must be deterrnlned,

he submltted, by the clrcumstances In whlch the payment was recelved

by the provlder of servlces, lncludlrlcl 111 partlcular ILS state of

mlnd. There was no basls or ]ustlflcat1011, he contendd, for

lnvestlgatlng the servlces whlch the ('Ur1sumi-x thuuqht sht? wide paylng

for, or what servlces would ob:ectlvcly bc determlned to be provlded

for by the terms of the contract betwctcn the> partles. It followed,

he sald, that the protectlon of tht= COII.L:UI~C:I: was not the purpose of

the enactment of the sectlon, but rather It was to enact a r w w

offence of falsely representlng an lntcntlcrl t.o carry out a psmlse.

In the past, because a representatlon ds to future conduct was not

regarded as a false statement of an txl:;tlllq fact, such a Iepresent-

atlon dld not found the crlme of falscx pretences. Sectlon 5k3 was

enacted to remedy thls sltuatlon and was contlavened only If the

defendant had accepted payment In respwt of a promlse whlch the

defendant had no lntentlon of performing. In the present matter the

defendant lntended at the tlme of acceptance to perform the servlces

whlch it belleved It was offering to the publlc and these were the

services It dld ultlmately supply. Thus It was sald there could bc

no contraventlon.

Counsel for the prosecutor put forward a constructlon of the

words "servlces In respect of whlch thtx payment.. . IS accepted"

dlametrically opposed to that of the (Ic-feIldant. He contelldcd t.hat

these servlces were the servlces whlch at the relevant tlmes Mrs.

and Miss Court could reasonably expect to I ~ - ~ c ~ ~ v c and 111 Iespect of

whlch they made thelr payments. He a lso submltted that the offence

was complete at the tlme of acceptance ot the payment nrld what

happened thereafter was of no relevance.

17.

I n g e n e r a l I accep t t he p rosecu toz ‘ S construction as t h e

preferred cons t ruc t ion though 111 my oplnlon, w h e r c there IS

u n c e r t a i n t y (as I n t h i s m a t t e r ) , t h e sc’rv1cc’s t o be provlc?ecl would

be a ma t t e r fo r ob lec t lve de t e rmlna t lo r l by t l w c o u r t . 111 such a

case the sub lec t lve l n t en t lon o f each o f t h ~ par - t les would hc of

less s l g n i f l c a n c e t h a n t h e i n f e r e n c p s t.0 b~. drawn from t k l r words

and conduct.

I n Smlth v Huqhes (1871) LR 6 Q.B. 537 Blackburn J. r e f e r r e d

t o t h e matters o f s u b l e c t l v e l n t e n t l o r l mal ublcct lve df tex-mlnat lon.

H e s a l d a t p.607:

“ I apprehend tha t If m e o f t h e parties In tends t o make a

con t rac t on one set of terms, and t.he o t h e r l n t e n d s to

make a con t r ac t on ano the r set c.f tzrms, or , a s It 1 5 some-

times expressed.lf t h e p a r t l e s a r e n o t a d i d e m , t h e r e 1 s no

contract , u n l e s s t he c l r cums tanccs dre such a s t o p rec lude

one of the partles from denylng rhdt he h a s a g r e e d t o the terms

o f t h e Cooke. o t h e r . The r u l e o f L A W 1 s t h a t s t a t e d I n Freeman v

I f , whatever a man’s ~ t \ a L l ! l t en t lon may bc, he so

conducts hlmself t h a t a reasonable man would b e l l e v e t h a t h e

was a s s e n t m g t o t h e t e r m s proposed by t h e o t h e r p a r t y , and

t h a t o t h e r p a r t y upon t h a t bellef e n t e r s l n t o t h c c o n t r a c t

w l th h im, t he man thus conductlng hlmself would be equa l ly

bound	as	i f h e	h a d I n t e n d e d t o	a y r c e	t o	t h e o t h e l	p a r t y ’ s
terms .	“

The au	thor	o f	Chi t ty	on	Cont rac ts ,	2 4	ecl.	a t p.136	s a y s o n t h l s
po in t :

‘I. .. t h e l n t e n t l o n o f t h e p a r t l e s IS, ds a general ruI.e,

t o be cons t rued ob lec t lve ly . The langudge used by one

p a r t y , w h a t e v e r h l s real 1ntentl .Ir l may be, 1 s t o be cons t rued

I n t h e sense In whlch It would be reasonably understood

by t h e o t h e r , or a t l e a s t l n t h c .L,CIISO 111 whlch a reasonablc

person would construe It ...

In most cases t h e a p p l l c a t l o n of t.llt: o b l e c t i v e tcs t w ~ l l

prec lude a p a r t y who has en t e red l n t o a con t r ac t unde r a

mlstake f r o m s e t t l n g u p h l s mistake a s a d e f e n c e t o a n

a c t i o n a g a i n s t h m f o r b r e a c h of cnn t l - ac t . I f a r c a s l n a b l e

man would have understood the cont idct In a c e r t a l r l s e n s e ,

t h e n , d e s p l t e h i s mlstake, t h e c o u l c will hold t h a t the

mls t aken pa r ty 1 s bound.“

l@.

In Goldsbrouqh Mort & CO L t d . v m (1910) 10 C.L.R. 674 a t

p.695 I s a a c s J. express ly approved thv obscrvat lons of Alackburn J. l n

Smlth v Huqhes supra. Thc! Master of t t l f A R 0 2 l s , Lord DennlncJ, would

d o u b t l e s s also approve t h l s as a forcsh;idowlr!cl o f t h e d o c t r l n e of

promlssory es toppel .

I t f a l l s t h e r e f o r e t o t h e c o u r t t t > declrie t h e terms of the

agreement b e t w e e n t h e p a r t l e s a n d i n paLt lcu lar the se rv lcc ' s whlch

a t t h e time It accepted payments the dclirndant was ob l iged t.o provldc.

Such d e c l s l o n w i l l be reached upon thf . b L i h 3 . s of what a Leasonable

t h l r d p a r t y would I n f e r from t h e words a r ~ l conduct of the par t les

t o t h e agreement , In d l f fe ren t circumstances a court mlqht conclude

t h a t b e c a u s e t h e p a r t l e s w e r e n o t ad l l i ~ r n , IC was lmpo.=slhle t o I n f e r

the ex ls tence o f any agreement , bu t such 1 s n o t t h e cdse here .

I have a l ready set o u t In some cdc.tall the r e l e v a n t facts III

t h i s matter. The de fendan t d l s t r lbb te (1 to t h e p u b l l c a brochure

whereln It set o u t d c t a l l s of t h e t o u r s whlch It o f f e r e d fo r sale.

Subsequently It a l t e r e d t h e l t l n e r a r y o t c t l l t a ln touLs bet clld n o t

amend or wlthdraw the brochures which remamcd wlth re ta l l t r a v e l

agents. I f It wlshed t o e n s u r e t h a t p u r c h a s e r s w a e aware of the

serv lces whlch It p roposed t o p rov ldc I n l 1 * a u of thosc I n t h r

brochures , it was ob l lged c l ea r ly and u r l equ lvoca l ly t o draw t o t h e l r

a t t e n t i o n t h e a l t e r a t l o n s . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t It f a 1 1 c J t o do so,

It was the au thor o f any consequent mlsunders tandlngs . In se t t ing

u p w h a t h e c a l l e d h l s f a l l s a f e s y s t c r n M r . Schul tz acknowlcdged that

h e a c c e p t e d t h e s i t u a t l o n t h a t If t h e *.l+ferlclant f a l 1 . d t o Infarm

purchasers o f the changes , a customer colllti he paylng fc r somethlrq

d l f f e ren t f rom tha t wh lch hls company ploposed t o supply. That

system w a s lmplemented In th l s present n ~ . : t t ~ h : by t h e t r . l + x r s t o M r s .

Lynch and he r t e l ephone conve r sa t lona w l t h MLS. Don .

19.

On t h e basls of the Sml th v Hughes tesC supra , It 1 s necessary

to de te rmine ob lec t ive ly whether , whatcvcr be t h e s ta te of mlnd

or mlsunderstandlng of the Cour ts , a 1-easonable man would conclude

t h a t t h e a l t e r a t l o n s h a d b e e n s u f f l c l c n t l y b r o u g h t t o t h c l r a t t e n t l o n

a t t h e r e l e v a n t tlmes. In other words,woulci he c o n s l d c r t h a t t h e

C o u r t s should have been aware of t h e a l t e r a t l o n s . To t h e e x t e n t t o

whlch a reasonable man would conclude that they w e r e aware or should

have been aware of t h e a l t e r a t l o n s , th. s( 'Lvlces for whlch t h e

payments were rmde would comprlse t h e s e r v i c e s l t e m l s e d l n the

brochure amended t o t h e e x t e n t of such conclusions. Applylng this

test t o t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n l n g the altr.1e.d d a t e o f d e p a r t u r e , t h l s

evidence 1 s not s u f f l c l e n t t o s a t i s f y m e t h a t t h e r e w a s a f a i l u r e t o

n o t i f y t h e Courts o f t h l s c h a n g e t o . t h e b r o c h u r e . I n respect of

the loss of t i m e In S lngapore I am s a t l s f l e d t h a t t h l s a l t e r a t l o n

t o t h e servlces was n o t s u f f l c l e n t l y b r o u g h t t.o t h e l r a t t e n t l o n a t

t h e tlme of the payments on 10, 11 and 10 May 1979. I make t h l s

f l nd lng because I a m satlsfled, t o t h c extent. of belng wlthout

r easonab le doub t , t ha t t he de fendan t had not by the las tmr,nt loned

d a t e made M r s . Don of Jetset Tours, and a f o r t l o r i t h e C o u r t s , a w a r e

of the loss of t i m e i n Slngapore. I m s a t l s f l e d t h a t thls a s a

c o n s e q u e n t i a l a l t e r a t l o n w a s e f f e c t l v e l y c o n v e y e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s

h e a d o f f l c e i n P e r t h , b u t that p r l o r t o the occas lon when Mrs. Court

had her t e lephone conversa t lon wl th M r s . Don, t h e l a t t e r w a s n o t

aware and had not been made aware of t h l s l o s s of tune. I t fo l lows

t h a t a reasonable man would not conclw'ie t.hat the Cour ts should have

been so aware, and t h u s t h e s e r v l c e s o f f e r e d i n t h e b r o c h u r e were

not amended t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h l s a l t c r a t l o n .

I n respect of t h e payment recelved by Jetset Tours on 31 May

1979 I reach a d l f f e r e n t c o n c l u s l o n . Tht. rvlclencc leaves n w I n a

s t a t e of doubt as t o whether ln consequence of the ln format lon g lven

20.

to Mrs. Don by Mrs. Lynch and by Mrs. Don to M r s . Court, the latter

was aware or should have been aware of the loss of tlme In Slngapore.

Resolving that doubt in favour of the defendant, I am not satlsfled

that a reasonable man would conclude that the servlces in respect

of whlch the payment was made on 31 May 1979 were the servlces as

itemised in the brochure and amended only as to the date of departure.

He might well conclude that Mrs. Court should have been aware of the

likelihood of additional amendments.

Counsel for the defendant attached much slgnlficance to the

presence of the word "accept" and contended that Its use precluded

me from making the above flndings because the defendant was unaware

of the Court$ state of mlnd. I would agree that Its meanlng

certainly goes beyond the physical act of receiving payment, and

would refer to the dlscusslon of the toplc and the differing views

as to the appropriate meanlng In the partlcular context In Becker v

Corporation of Marlon (1974) 9 S.A.S.R. 543, a declslon of the Full

Court of the Supreme Court of South Australla and on further appeal

as reported In [l973 A.C. 271 at pp.285-286. Counsel for the

defendant referred to the lnterpretatlon placed on the word "accept"

in - A v A p9741 1 All E.R. 755 at pp.762 and 763 and in partlcular

to the following sentence:

"Acceptance, In my ludgment, involves a dellberate act

of recognitlon of a state of affalrs dlfferent from the

state of affairs which actually exlsts or may posslbly

exist and the assumption of obllgations depending on the

recognlsed, as opposed	to the actual or posslble, state of
affairs."

However "accept" was there interpreted In the context of

matrimonial law and the acceptance by a husband of hls wlfe's child

as a child of their family. Moreover as Bagnall J. pointed out at

p.762, "the concept of acceptance has nothlng to do wlth the law of

contract", whereas In my opinion the law of contract 1 s very relevant

21.

t o the meaning of the word "accept" l n t h l s m a t t e r . C o u n s e l f o r t h e

de fendan t con tended t ha t t he re cou ld be no t r u e a c c e p t a n c e If t h e

acceptor w a s ignorant o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s . a n d t h u s I n t h l s matter,

t he de fendan t be lng lgnorant o f what services the Courts had i n mlnd,

t h e r e w a s no acceptance by t h e d e f e n d a n i . I f t h e r e was any acceptancg

he contended, it was acceptance on thc! bas l s o f what the defendant

had I n mind t o supply. I t w a s l n r c l a t l o n t o t h l s a r q u m r n t t h a t

counsel conceded that the defendant alwdyb 1nt.ended t o supply some-

thing di f fe ren t f rom what was i n t h e b r o c h u ~ r and he contended t h a t

t h a t l n t e n t l o n had been conununlcated to t h r C o u r t s . He acknowledged

e a r l y I n h l s s u h i s s l o n s t h a t I f t h e rlefundarlt had f a l l e d to prove

t h a t c o m u n l c a t i o n , l t w a s I n some d l f f l c u l t y . I t may w e l l be t h a t

t h l s acknowledgement w a s u l t lmate ly wl thdrawn b u t I n my v lew the

concess lon and the acknowledgement cor lec t ly s ta ted the pos l t lon .

The acceptance by the defendant o f the payments w a s an acceptance

a g a l n s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f a n l n v l t a t l o n t o t h e p u b l l c i n g e n e r a l a n d

M r s and Mlss C o u r t I n p a r t i c u l a r t o pu rchase spec l f l ed t ou r s on t he

terms and condi t ions set o u t I n t h e b r o c h u r e . I n par t icu lar , members

o f t h e public were advised of t h e c o s t o f the t o u r s a n d d i r e c t e d t o

make s p e c i f l e d p a y m e n t s I n t h e manner t h e r e l n set o u t . I f t h e

defendant recclved a payment I n respect of any of the t o u r s , ln my

opln lon that payment 1 s accepted for and i n t h e context of the

f e a t u r e s of t h e t o u r s s p e c l f l e d . except Lo t h e e x t e n t t h a t any

a l t e r a t l o n t h e r e o f 1s conununlcated t o t he payer . It 1 s n o t c o r r e c t

t o s a y , as was p u t by counse l fo r t he dL : fenddn t , t ha t accep tance cou ld

be ' th rus t" upon t h e d e f e n d a n t upon terms of which lt was unaware.

Rather It 1s t o be taken t o a c c e p t uprjn t.erms of whlch 2 t. should be

aware. In my o p l n l o n t h e u s e o f t h e wul-d "accept" does no t enable

the de fendan t t o contend tha t It r e c e l v f d payment f o r sc:rvlr:.'cs

which were d l f f e r e n t from those whlch t - h r . consumer was e n t i t l e d t o

22 .

assume she would receive, such entltlement belng objectively

determined In accordance with the test In Smlth v Huqhes supra.

It was also suhltted that Jetset Tours In recelvlng the

payments from Mrs and Mlss Court were actlng as their agent and not

as agent for the defendant. If thls be the case, the defendant dld

not "accept" payments, lt was sald. untll such tlme as the varlous

m u n t s were received by It, 1.e. some days subsequent to recelpt by

Jetset Tours. Jetset Tours recelved payments on account oE the

deposlt on 9 and 10 May 1979 respectlvely and the defendant recelved

these payments at the latest on 15 May 1979. Mlss Court pald to

Jetset Tours an m u n t on account of the fares on 18 May 1979, prior

to the date upon whlch she or her mother became aware, In my flndlrgs,

of those changes to the ltlnerary other than the amended date of

departure. Mrs. Court pald the balance on 31 May 1979, subsequent

to ascertalnlng some details of alteratlons from Mrs. Don, and both

amounts less comlsslon were paid to the defendant on 6 June 1979.

As each of the charges alleges that the contraventlons occurred

on the day upon which the relevant payment was recelved by Jetset

Tours, it is only necessary to determlne whether, as alleged in

each charge, Jetset Tours, in accordance wlth the partlculars, accepted the payment as agent for the defendant. In other words I must decide whether recelpt by Jetset Tours amounted In the

circumstances to receipt by the defendant. Such wlll In my oplnlon

be the case if Jetset Tours recelved the payment In questlon wlth the

authorlty, express or Implied, of the defendant and because, as Lord

Herschell sald, "no word 1s more commonly and constantly abused than

the word 'agent"' (See Internatlonal Harvester CO of Australla Pty.

- Ltd. v Carrlqan's Hazeldene Pastoral CO (1958) 100 C.L.R. 644 @

23.

p.652), I prefer to conslder thls as a mattcxr	of authorlty rather
than agency.

Counsel for the defendant referlccl to that portlon of the

pdgment of the court In Petcrson v Mdlanry (1951) 84 C.L.R. 91 at

9 5 , namely:

"But It must, we thlnk, be regarded 3 s scttled law that

an agent employed to find a puLc:hasw has no lmplled authorlty to recelve the purchase money In the scnse that

a receipt by him 1 s a recelpt by hls prlnclpal and wlll

therefore dlscharge the purchase1 . I'

It can not be sald that thls 1 s authorlty for the general proposltlon

that an agent has no lmplied authorlty. Rather It relates to a more

llmited authority, namely to glve a recelpt In dlscharge of the

payer.

In addition to drawlng attentlon to the nature of the Implled

authority whlch was referred to In that dlcta, I would refer to the

short reasons of Sankey J. In Butwick v Grant [l924 2 X.B.	483 at
489. He sald:

"I found my judgment upon that of Lush J. In Drakeford v

Plercy. He there said: 'that an agent authorlsed to sell

has as a necessary legal consequence authorlty to recelve

payment is a proposltlon utterly untenable and contrary

to authority'. In an actlon by the seller of goods agalnst

the buyer for the price It would be open to the buyer who

had pald the seller's agent to show, and In the absence of

any reason to the contrary he would be entitled to succeed

on showmg, either that the agent had actual authority to recelve payment, or that he had ostenslble authorlty to

recelve payment, or that he had a customary authorlty by

reason of the fact that the payment was made to hlm In the

ordlnary course of the buslness of aqencles of the klnd In

questlon. In the present case the county court ludge has

found that no authorlty of any of these descrlptlons was

shown to have been possessed by the agent. 'I

In thls present matter the prosecutor contended th3t It was

open to It to show authorlty of any of the above descrlptlons, and

also pomted to s.84(2) of the Act, whlch goes beyond those forms of

24.

authorlty and 1 s in the followlng terms:

"Any conduct engaged In on behalf o f a body corporate by a

director, agent or servant of thrl body corporate or 5y any

other person at the dlrectlon or wlth the consent or agreement

(whether express or lmplled) of a dlrcctor, agent or servant

of the body corporate shall h decmed. for the purpose of thls

Act, to have been engaged In also by the body corporate."

However, in my oplnlon, wlthout c ~ l l 1 n y Ln ald s.84( 2 ) I

consider there 1 s sufflclcnt evldenc(. I J p C r f l wlllch I can act t.o flnd

lmplled authorlty In Jetset Tours to FICCfFJt payments from prospectlve

tourlsts, partlcularly in that there	w a s 1 1 0 evldence tendered by
the defendant to the contrary.

M r . Pateman, a director of Jetset Tours, gave evldence of the

arrangements between hls company and - the defendant. He also deposed

to the business practlces I n the Industry, whLch practlces sapport

my vlew of Jetset Tours' authorlty. Sdpport 1s also to he found In

the defendant's document wherein was calculated the balance of the

fares. Thls document contemplated that such balance would be paid

to the travel agent, and the agent was authorlsed to deduct 113s

cornmission prlor to paylng the defendant. Moreover the document was

dlrected by the defendant not to the Courts but to Jetset Tours,

and there IS nowhere any suggestlon that the amount of the balance

fare should be paid by the Courts dlrect to the defendant.

Furthermore, I attach conslderablc significance to the

invltatlon on the back of the brochure whlch I have already mentioned

and whlch can only be seen as a request by the defendant to the

public not to deal dlrectly with the defendant but to deal through a

specified retall agent. It 1s In thr followlng terms:

"Please make your reservations	w l t h thc Travel Agi'nt
whose name appears below",

25.

and 1 s accompanled by a l a r g e w h i t e block 111 whlch t h e name and

address of Jetset Tours was stamped.

T h a t t h l s a m o u n t s t o a ho ld lng ou t by t he de fendan t of Jetset

Tours as a body a u t h o r l s e d t o co l lec t . p.3yments and make booklngs

f o r the d e f e n d a n t ' s t o u r s 1 s l n my vlt7\n c-orlflrmed a l s o by t h e

Reservat lon Request , d form of whlch 1s a l s o I n c l u d e d I n t h e

brochure. Once a g a l n t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s r e q u e s t e d t h e p r o s p e c t i v e

p u r c h a s e r t o d e a l w l t h a r e t a l l a g e n t a n d t o make payment t o such

agent for u l t lma te d l sbu r semen t t o t he de fendan t . Additionally I n

that document , which names t h e re ta l l agent and n o t t h e d e f e n d a n t ,

t h e p u r c h a s e r " a g r e e s t o a c c e p t the cor l rh t lons whlch a rc the basls

of t h e c o n t r a c t " .

I t f o l l o w s t h a t , l n my op ln ion , Jetset Tours was a u t h o r l s e d by

t h e d e f e n d a n t t o accept money on Its b e h a l f , a n d f o r t l n s l l r n l t e d

purpose a t least w a s t h e a g e n t of the de fendan t .

A f u r t h e r submission of counse l for the defendant w a s the

c o n t e n t l o n t h a t t h e a m o u n t s p a l d by way OF d c p o s l t dld n o t I n l a w

amount i n the circumstances o f t h l s c a s e to "payment o r o t h e r

c o n s l d e r a t l o n " f o r s e r v l c e s . H e p re sen ted t h l s a rgumen t on t h e

basis t h a t a d e p o s l t 1 s I n t ru th mere ly an ca rnes t fo r pe r fo rmance ,

and not a payment fo r s e rv l ces . Re fe rence was made t o Br len v

Dwer (1978) 53 A.L.J.R. 1 2 3 e s p e c l a l l y per Glbbs J. a t 127-8 ,

Soper v Arnold (1889) 14 A p p . Cas 4 2 3 a t p.435 and v Smlth

(1884) 27 Ch.D	89.	I n	t h e	f lrst	mentluned	case	Glbbs	J.	a t p.127
sa ld :

"The n a t u r e o f a d e p o s l t 1s w e l l undPrstood. In Soper v

Arnold (1889) 14 App C a s . 42'3 at p.435, Lord Macnaqhten

sa ld : 'The d e p o s l t s e r v e s two p u z p o s e s - l f t h e p u r c h a s e

1s c a r r l e d o u t It goes aga lns t the purchase money - but

l t s pr imary purpose i s thls, lt 1s a guarantee Chat the

purchaser means business. . ."

26.

I n t h e p r e s e n t matter no t on ly w a s th t , purchase "car r led ou t"

so t h a t t h e d e p o s l t went I n f a c t a g a l n s t t h e p u r c h a s e prlce o f t h e

s e r v l c e s , b u t t h a t t h l s was t o be t h e c a s e was expressly provlded by

c o n d l t i o n 8 o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d l t l o n s of service. I n my o p l n l o n ,

each of the payments made t o Jetset Tours on behal f o f the defendant

was a payment f o r s e r v l c c s .

The f l n a l q u e s t l o n 1 s whether thc services I n respect of whlch

Jetset Tours accepted on behalf of thc d e f m d a n t the Courts ' payments

were m a t e r i a l l y d l f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e w h c h the defendant Intended

on t h e r e l e v a n t d a t e s t o s u p p l y a n d r i l d 111 f ac t supp ly . Th l s 1 s a

ques t ion of d e g r e e , I n t h a t there was wlthout doubt some d l f f e r e n c e .

On my f lnd lngs o f f ac t t he Cour t s r ea sonab ly expec ted on 3 , 10 & 18

May 1979 t o recelve two f u l l d a y s I n S l n g a p o r e a t t h e commencement

of thelr tou r . They r ece lved , as t h e d e f e n d a n t a t a l l r e l e v a n t

tlmes lntended they should recelve, o n e f u l l d a y a t t h a t tlme and

t h e n l g h t h o u r s o f a n a d d l t l o n a l d a y a t t h e e n d o f t h e t o u r . I n

my o p i n i o n , c o n s i d e r e d o b ~ e c t l v e l y , s u c h a d l f f e r e n c e was a m a t e r i a l

d i f f e rence , and w a s c e r t a l n l y s e e n a s s u c h by M r s . Court. L l k e w l s e

M r . Schu l t z saw two c o n s e c u t l v e f u l l d a y s 111 Slngapore as a

s ign i f i can t f e a t u r e of t h e t o u r and a s a n a t t r a c t l v e o f f e r t o a

p rospec t lve pu rchase r . I t w a s t h u s a n o f f e r l l k e l y t o l n f l u e n c e

t h e d e c i s l o n o f a reasonable person. I f l n d t h e a l t e r a t l o n w a s

materlal	and	t h a t	it	e n t a l l e d t h e s u p p l y o f m a t e r l a l l y d l f f e l e n t
s e r v i c e s .

My lt8 agent Jetset Tours accepted f l n d l n g s stated I n general payments on 1 0 , 11 and l8 May 1979 terms a r c t h a t t h e d e r e n d a n t by

I n c o n s l d e r a t i o n for se rv lces wh lch It Intcnded to supply, whlch

serv ices d l f fe red mater la l ly f rom the b< . lv l ( : ( :b for whlch a reasonable

27.

man would conclude It had accepted the payments . I t fol . l ows t ha t

I n respect o f t hese f l nd ings t he re have been con t r aven t ~ o n s of

S. 58 (b) o f t h e A c t .

The p r o s e c u t o r l a l d f l v e c h a r g e s I n r e l a t l o n t o t h e s e

con t r aven t lons , t w o I n respect of each of the t w o earller days ana

o n e i n respect of 18 May 1979. I can no t accep t t ha t two contraven-

t l o n s of the s ec t lon occu r red on each o f t he ea r l l e r days . The

occaslon of a con t r aven t lon IS the acceptance of payment, and I n my

opinlon because on each day there was an acceptance of payment on

one occas ion on ly , there was only one offence. Admlt tedly, each

t u n e money was p a i d , It was p a l d I n respect o f s e r v l c e s t o be [email protected]

t o two persons . However such i s n o t h l n g t o t h e p o l n t , so long as

there was only one acceptance of payment. It can not be t h a t there

are as many con t r aven t lons as t h e r e a r e p e r s o n s I n respect of whom

the s e r v l c e s are t o be supp l l ed when one payment only 1s accepted

I n respect o f t h e s e r v l c e s . There was noth lng i n the ev ldence t o

sugges t tha t on each day there were two separa te acceptances o f

payment. As there w a s on ly one acceptance each day, I do not

cons ide r It approprlate tha t the defendant should be found t o h a v e

committed on each occaslon more than one offence. I w i l l I n d u e

c o u r s e e n t e r a c o n v i c t l o n I n respect of the t w o e a r l l e r dates on

charges numbered respect lvely G21 of 1980 and G23 of 1980. As t o

charge numbered G25 of 1980 I w l l l orlter a convlct lon and I w l l l

dlsmlss charge numbered G26 of 1980. I w l l l hear counsel on the

fa te of charges G22 and G24 r e s p e c t i v e l y o f 1 9 8 0 a n d a l s o o n t h e t w o

matters o f f i n e s and costs. I d r a w t h e p a r t l e s ' a t t e n t l o n t o t h e

p rov l s ions o f Order 49 r u l e 5 of t h e R u l e s of Court and adlourn the

proceedings t o a date t o be f i x e d .

28.

I do n o t p r o p o s e t o e n t e r a n y tormal Judqments a t t h l s s t a g e

bu t t o s t a n d t h e a c t l o n s o v e r t o erlablt: th+ a f o r e s a l d m a t t e r s t o

be determlned. The tlme for appeal w l l l l-herefore not r u n u n t l l

I enter formal ludgment on each of thc chaLc3c:s.